est1874 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 29 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said: Honestly, I'm surprised, it feels like the first time City have blinked on this. Going from claiming complete innocence to taking legal action against the league and the rules they are being charged under is quite the about-turn. I just thought they'd throw all the money at the best lawyers to make it go away. Obviously, the league must have a very strong case, one they can't wriggle out of, so they are just going to drop this legal bomb and see what happens. Should City even be allowed to take part in the league while this is going on? So many questions, it's an unprecedented situation. Feels like this could potentially be a huge moment in the future of football in this country. What do you think this legal action is exactly? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, est1874 said: What do you think this legal action is exactly? I thought it was quite obvious in my post that I meant they would pay the best lawyers to make the initial case go away, not the Premier League as a whole, which seems to be their new plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 4 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said: I thought it was quite obvious in my post that I meant they would pay the best lawyers to make the initial case go away, not the Premier League as a whole, which seems to be their new plan. The best lawyers don't just make cases go away. They litigate them away by arguing against the framework of the existing legislation under which, or according to which, they are being charged. That's exactly what Citeh's lawyers are doing here - quibbling with the mechanism of FFP which in turn would see the charges disappear. Did you think they'd just Harry Potter them out of existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted June 4 VT Supporter Share Posted June 4 This will just make the inevitable out of court settlement seem more reasonable (to idiots) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I hate this team so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 16 minutes ago, est1874 said: The best lawyers don't just make cases go away. They litigate them away by arguing against the framework of the existing legislation under which, or according to which, they are being charged. That's exactly what Citeh's lawyers are doing here - quibbling with the mechanism of FFP which in turn would see the charges disappear. Did you think they'd just Harry Potter them out of existence? No, Mr Condescending, I thought they'd use the Chewbacca defence and then all go out for pizza afterwards... Honestly, this place sometimes. I assumed the argument against the framework would be made when they defend themselves against the charges, rather than a separate action, I also thought they'd be looking for loopholes in the rules/laws around them until they find something sufficient enough to create doubt. I thought this would be the conventional way to defend the charges, plan A if you will. I think those are pretty reasonable assumptions for someone who isn't versed in law, are they not? You may well know better, but please cool your jets. I'm not sure the charges would disappear even if they did get FFP removed, as they agreed to and signed up for those rules for the time period the charges refer to, but again I'm no legal expert, I'm just trying to understand what is going on the same as everybody else. Edited June 4 by Teale's 'tache Added missing quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I **** hate this shitty club. Just make a mockery of the game 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 56 minutes ago, villa89 said: My guess is their lawyers have now accepted they will lose so it's time to get FFP scrapped entirely. They tried this before when the UK was in the EU as FFP is clearly a restraint of trade but I don't know what the legalities are in the UK. Worst case for city is it delays everything for another three years. One thing to note is that city signed up to the FFP rules in the first place. That would hugely harm any case against FFP now you would imagine. City voted against them (along with us) when they were first introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, Teale's 'tache said: No, Mr Condescending, I thought they'd use the Chewbacca defence and then all go out for pizza afterwards... Honestly, this place sometimes. I assumed the argument against the framework would be made when they defend themselves against the charges, rather than a separate action, I also thought they'd be looking for loopholes in the rules/laws around them until they find something sufficient enough to create doubt. I thought this would be the conventional way to defend the charges, plan A if you will. I think those are pretty reasonable assumptions for someone who isn't versed in law, are they not? You may well know better, but please cool your jets. I'm not sure the charges would disappear even if they did get FFP removed, as they agreed to and signed up for those rules for the time period the charges refer to, but again I'm no legal expert, I'm just trying to understand what is going on the same as everybody else. You're awfully defensive Bad day? Your original post suggested a narrative other than what this story is: a pretty par for the course legal counteroffensive. City were always going to go on the attack, it's the only chance they have of crushing the charges. Everyone and his pet goldfish knows the club is guilty, so they can't just defend the case and get out of it. It's fairly predictable they would do what rich bullies and tyrants have done for generations by going on the attack. You implied this was them blinking or faltering. It's not, and there's every chance they might succeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teale's 'tache Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 minute ago, est1874 said: You're awfully defensive Bad day? Your original post suggested a narrative other than what this story is: a pretty par for the course legal counteroffensive. City were always going to go on the attack, it's the only chance they have of crushing the charges. Everyone and his pet goldfish knows the club is guilty, so they can't just defend the case and get out of it. It's fairly predictable they would do what rich bullies and tyrants have done for generations by going on the attack. You implied this was them blinking or faltering. It's not, and there's every chance they might succeed. Okay legal eagle, par for the course, sure, teams take legal action against the league all the time, so obvious, I'm such a dunce. How could anyone not jump to the same entirely factual conclusions that you have reached? I feel ashamed. Anyway, I best strip naked and stagger around the shires while people shout shame at me for my obvious and rampant stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, est1874 said: You're awfully defensive Bad day? Your original post suggested a narrative other than what this story is: a pretty par for the course legal counteroffensive. City were always going to go on the attack, it's the only chance they have of crushing the charges. Everyone and his pet goldfish knows the club is guilty, so they can't just defend the case and get out of it. It's fairly predictable they would do what rich bullies and tyrants have done for generations by going on the attack. You implied this was them blinking or faltering. It's not, and there's every chance they might succeed. I don't think the two of you are that far apart: Why launch a separate action attempting to de-legitimize the rules you are being accused of violating? The merits of the rules would be argued inside that case for efficiency's sake, not in a wholly separate action. A poor analogy would be if I want to argue that the law under which I was arrested is illegitimate, I don't sue the government about that: instead it's inside of the criminal case itself. Having two cases instead of one, on the same subject matter, with all the same parties present, is... and this is a technical term for lawyers: f***ing stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 15 minutes ago, duke313 said: City voted against them (along with us) when they were first introduced. I hope their argument is stronger than "we voted against it so we don't have to follow it, but we would very much like all the other protections and benefits of this group association we have freely joined." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 5 minutes ago, 479Villan said: I don't think the two of you are that far apart: Why launch a separate action attempting to de-legitimize the rules you are being accused of violating? The merits of the rules would be argued inside that case for efficiency's sake, not in a wholly separate action. A poor analogy would be if I want to argue that the law under which I was arrested is illegitimate, I don't sue the government about that: instead it's inside of the criminal case itself. Having two cases instead of one, on the same subject matter, with all the same parties present, is... and this is a technical term for lawyers: f***ing stupid. The separate case means they're more likely to succeed. Attacking and dismantling 1 thing is easier than defending against 115 things. They have to answer to every charge, and most likely many of those individual charges are big enough that even if half of them got thrown out, those that stuck would mean relegation/removal from the league, or worse. All they have to do with their own case is argue that FFP or its tenets shouldn't be legally enforceable and then every single one of the 115 charges dissipates. It's not really stupid at all, unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCJonah Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 The biggest stain in prem history. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Was at the new coop arena last Friday which is right next to the "empty had". I have never been to the "empty had" before, but although it looked impressive from the outside, the thought that kept going through my head is "all of this was built with corruption and funny money"..... ....plastic club, plastic stadium, and now it appears they are trying everything to try and continue this advantage they now they " that they are the victims of “discrimination”, describing rules they say have been approved by their rivals to stifle their success on the pitch as a “tyranny of the majority”....... obviously the Middle East have never heard of "democracy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duke313 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 34 minutes ago, 479Villan said: I hope their argument is stronger than "we voted against it so we don't have to follow it, but we would very much like all the other protections and benefits of this group association we have freely joined." They’re trying to get FFP scrapped, hence them suing the PL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 28 minutes ago, est1874 said: The separate case means they're more likely to succeed. Attacking and dismantling 1 thing is easier than defending against 115 things. They have to answer to every charge, and most likely many of those individual charges are big enough that even if half of them got thrown out, those that stuck would mean relegation/removal from the league, or worse. All they have to do with their own case is argue that FFP or its tenets shouldn't be legally enforceable and then every single one of the 115 charges dissipates. It's not really stupid at all, unfortunately. But why would you do that in two separate proceedings? It is counter to judicial efficiency, or arbitrator efficiency, or whoever is the decision making authority who is the adjective before the word "efficiency." I get attacking the validity of the rules you are charged with breaking. I do not get doing it elsewhere. Beyond those arguments, the time to argue that a rule is unfair, if it can be done in a separate proceeding, is not a week before hearings begin on the charges. These have been known for years: if the rule itself is bad, then it was bad when you were first notified of charges against you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
479Villan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 minutes ago, duke313 said: They’re trying to get FFP scrapped, hence them suing the PL. I know what their goal is, I am questioning the timing of their argument, and the substance thereof. It's like my kid telling me he wants to go to the moon. Okay, that's fine, but I'm questioning how you think you're getting there by this evening, in a rocket ship made out of a refrigerator box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I am sure all this will be swept under the carpet when the uk government talks to abu dhabi, and abu dhabi remind the UK government about how much investment and jobs are at risk should man 155y lose this case 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 16 minutes ago, 479Villan said: But why would you do that in two separate proceedings? It is counter to judicial efficiency, or arbitrator efficiency, or whoever is the decision making authority who is the adjective before the word "efficiency." I get attacking the validity of the rules you are charged with breaking. I do not get doing it elsewhere. Beyond those arguments, the time to argue that a rule is unfair, if it can be done in a separate proceeding, is not a week before hearings begin on the charges. These have been known for years: if the rule itself is bad, then it was bad when you were first notified of charges against you. Again this is pretty standard... They are setting out to delay and frustrate the PL's attempts at holding them to account. It's strategy. You're acting like they're idiots. They've hired the smartest legal minds in the UK. The hope is that the PL stand firm while City's case plays out and hopefully ends up being unsuccessful, but let's see. Given how horrendously incompetent the League is, I know who I'd be putting my money on, quite frankly. Edited June 4 by est1874 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts